Sophie Slociak

What is the London Plan?
The London Plan is the statutory spatial development strategy outlining six core objectives for the Greater London area. First published in 2004, the Plan has been amended and added to. Most relevant to the construction industry is Chapter 5, London’s response to Climate Change, which includes requirements for sustainable development within the Greater London area
What’s happening to it?
As of October 1 2016, the London Plan requirements for energy statements are changing, with a significant revision to section 5.2 “minimising carbon dioxide emissions”. The adjustment to the policy requires all major developments will be required to be ‘zero carbon’ however if this cannot be achieved then a cash in lieu contribution will be sought. In addition to the ‘zero carbon’ targets, further emphasis is to be placed on district heating networks and a new requirement to follow the cooling hierarchy, which includes an in depth overheating risk analysis, will be introduced. This blog will focus on the ‘zero carbon’ element of the GLA guidance1 on preparing energy statements.
How will this affect developers?
All major developments within the Greater London Authority (GLA) currently have to submit an energy strategy to comply with policies 5.2 to 5.9 of the London Plan. These policies cover a range of topics including but not exclusive to: sustainable design and construction, decentralised energy networks and renewable energy.
The area most developers are aware of is Policy 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions, which involves following the energy hierarchy: Be Lean, Be Clean and Be Green. The Be Lean stage requires major developments to meet or exceed Part L of the building regulations through energy demand reduction methods alone. Be Clean requires the viability of district heating and combined heat and power (CHP) systems to be assessed.
The final stage, Be Green, requires a feasibility study for renewable or low/zero carbon technologies to be undertaken with a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions through onsite generation. The current level of this commitment is to demonstrate a minimum 35% improvement over Part L of the 2013 Building Regulations.
Although the Government announced in July 2015 that it does not intend to pursue the zero carbon homes target at present, it remains in place within the London Plan and will be applied to all major residential developments received on or after October 1 2016. The “zero carbon” target requires the new developments to follow the energy hierarchy as outlined above (still meeting the 35% reduction in CO2 at the Be Green stage) but with the remaining emissions to be off-set through a cash in lieu contribution to the relevant borough.
These funds will then be ring-fenced to secure carbon dioxide savings elsewhere. The cash in lieu payment is to be £60 per tonne of carbon dioxide for a period of 30 years based upon The Mayor’s Housing Standard’s Viability Assessment, although this figure can be decided at a borough level.
What will the developers make of this?
First and foremost it is likely to come as a surprise to a majority of developers as there has been very little so far in the way of announcing the ‘zero carbon’ targets. The target was included in the updated guidance on preparing energy assessments (March 2016) and has stayed largely unreported.
With developers unaware problems could be caused with planning applications being rejected for not including a strategy on how the target will be met or a calculation demonstrating the cash in lieu contribution. Although the target will lead to increased costs it is unlikely this will lead to development stalling as was one of the major concerns with the governments zero carbon homes target which were scrapped earlier in the year.
This is partly being attributable to the buoyancy of the London property market which isn’t seen elsewhere.
Can you give a cash in lieu example?
A carbon offset payment has been calculated for a previously completed project which comprised of 14 residential flats with a combined floor area of 993.50 m2. The flats were designed to exceed Part L requirements using individual gas boilers for heating and hot water. Then a 15 kWp solar PV system was installed to achieve a 42% improvement over the Building Regulations standard.
After the PV at the Be Green stage, the site wide emissions stood at 10.664 tonnes CO2/year. Assuming the offset price of £60 per tonne, this works out at £640 per year and multiplying the figure to cover the 30 years gives a total of £19,200 to be paid to the Carbon Offset Fund.
What do you make of the changes?
It is pleasing to see the Greater London Authority adhering to previous commitments on carbon dioxide reduction, with viability assessments indicating the “zero carbon” targets will not compromise future housing development. The target is seen as essential to ensure London is ready for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive introduction of zero energy buildings by 2020.

What is the London Plan?
The London Plan is the statutory spatial development strategy outlining six core objectives for the Greater London area. First published in 2004, the Plan has been amended and added to. Most relevant to the construction industry is Chapter 5, London’s response to Climate Change, which includes requirements for sustainable development within the Greater London area
What’s happening to it?
As of October 1 2016, the London Plan requirements for energy statements are changing, with a significant revision to section 5.2 “minimising carbon dioxide emissions”. The adjustment to the policy requires all major developments will be required to be ‘zero carbon’ however if this cannot be achieved then a cash in lieu contribution will be sought. In addition to the ‘zero carbon’ targets, further emphasis is to be placed on district heating networks and a new requirement to follow the cooling hierarchy, which includes an in depth overheating risk analysis, will be introduced. This blog will focus on the ‘zero carbon’ element of the GLA guidance1 on preparing energy statements.
How will this affect developers?
All major developments within the Greater London Authority (GLA) currently have to submit an energy strategy to comply with policies 5.2 to 5.9 of the London Plan. These policies cover a range of topics including but not exclusive to: sustainable design and construction, decentralised energy networks and renewable energy.
The area most developers are aware of is Policy 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions, which involves following the energy hierarchy: Be Lean, Be Clean and Be Green. The Be Lean stage requires major developments to meet or exceed Part L of the building regulations through energy demand reduction methods alone. Be Clean requires the viability of district heating and combined heat and power (CHP) systems to be assessed.
The final stage, Be Green, requires a feasibility study for renewable or low/zero carbon technologies to be undertaken with a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions through onsite generation. The current level of this commitment is to demonstrate a minimum 35% improvement over Part L of the 2013 Building Regulations.
Although the Government announced in July 2015 that it does not intend to pursue the zero carbon homes target at present, it remains in place within the London Plan and will be applied to all major residential developments received on or after October 1 2016. The “zero carbon” target requires the new developments to follow the energy hierarchy as outlined above (still meeting the 35% reduction in CO2 at the Be Green stage) but with the remaining emissions to be off-set through a cash in lieu contribution to the relevant borough.
These funds will then be ring-fenced to secure carbon dioxide savings elsewhere. The cash in lieu payment is to be £60 per tonne of carbon dioxide for a period of 30 years based upon The Mayor’s Housing Standard’s Viability Assessment, although this figure can be decided at a borough level.
What will the developers make of this?
First and foremost it is likely to come as a surprise to a majority of developers as there has been very little so far in the way of announcing the ‘zero carbon’ targets. The target was included in the updated guidance on preparing energy assessments (March 2016) and has stayed largely unreported.
With developers unaware problems could be caused with planning applications being rejected for not including a strategy on how the target will be met or a calculation demonstrating the cash in lieu contribution. Although the target will lead to increased costs it is unlikely this will lead to development stalling as was one of the major concerns with the governments zero carbon homes target which were scrapped earlier in the year.
This is partly being attributable to the buoyancy of the London property market which isn’t seen elsewhere.
Can you give a cash in lieu example?
A carbon offset payment has been calculated for a previously completed project which comprised of 14 residential flats with a combined floor area of 993.50 m2. The flats were designed to exceed Part L requirements using individual gas boilers for heating and hot water. Then a 15 kWp solar PV system was installed to achieve a 42% improvement over the Building Regulations standard.
After the PV at the Be Green stage, the site wide emissions stood at 10.664 tonnes CO2/year. Assuming the offset price of £60 per tonne, this works out at £640 per year and multiplying the figure to cover the 30 years gives a total of £19,200 to be paid to the Carbon Offset Fund.
What do you make of the changes?
It is pleasing to see the Greater London Authority adhering to previous commitments on carbon dioxide reduction, with viability assessments indicating the “zero carbon” targets will not compromise future housing development. The target is seen as essential to ensure London is ready for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive introduction of zero energy buildings by 2020.

Sustainability has been at the top of the agenda for many years but I have an ever-increasing feeling that much of the industry is missing the next step. Over recent years we have been placing our emphasis on the environmental and economic parts of sustainability, but we shouldn’t forget the fact that we are creating buildings for people and the well-being of these people should be the priority. So the question is: Are we putting buildings before people? Is it now time to place greater emphasis on people?
When you look at costs in relation to buildings, we freely talk about energy savings but our biggest cost is the people within them and this figure is an astonishing 90% of that overall cost. In addition it has been claimed that we spend over 90% of our time indoors and in an office environment. So why has the focus been put firmly on creating better buildings when, in fact, we should be creating buildings to make the occupants feel better, and in turn, happier and more productive? Imagine what we could achieve if we were able to increase productivity in an office by just 1% simply through creating a better working environment? Well, I have a feeling this is all about to change.
A couple of months ago it was alluded to in an article in Building magazine that the WELL Building Standard could soon be aligned with global sustainability standard BREEAM. The WELL Standard, created by US-based consultants Delos, measures human health and wellness using evidence-based medical and scientific research to help inform better design of buildings. To quote Delos founder Paul Scialla and Building magazine: “Delos are in talks with BRE about pairing the WELL Standard with BREEAM.” This could be a major step forward to aligning the performance of buildings with the wellness of its occupants as reinforced by Scialla who stated that he realised 7 years ago there was a “huge gap in regard to not enough understanding of how the built environment really is impacting biological sustainability as opposed to just environmental.”
BREEAM has long been the ‘go to’ standard to help deliver sustainable buildings. Used in more than 70 countries and with 24,000 projects around the world, and more than 2.2 million buildings and communities registered for certification, it is clear to understand the value that the built environment places on BREEAM. Whilst BREEAM does encourage occupier and building owners to continually monitor performance, it doesn’t go as far as looking and measuring occupier behaviours and well-being. Surely this is the next natural step? And, as if on cue, we have WELL.
Whilst the WELL Standard has been in existence for some years now – most actively in the USA – it is relatively new to Europe. However, Studio Ben Allen Architects’ One Carter Lane project has just become the first European project to receive the accreditation. One Carter Lane, the new London headquarters of engineers Cundall, is a 15,400ft² Cat-A office fit-out. The fit-out provides new workspaces for up to 180 employees and attained a BREEAM Excellent rating and SKA Gold certification – in addition to a WELL Gold standard.
The WELL Building Standard defines a set of compliance requirements that cover seven key areas: air, water, nourishment, light, fitness, comfort and mind. It looks at driving change towards more personal criteria such as stating that 30% of staff must have space to eat lunch together; materials such as desks and storage must use natural materials; and that the volatile organic compound (VOC) rating of all materials must be between negligible and zero, thus ensuring that office fixtures, fittings and fabric do not expel harmful chemical or organic emissions.
So how does all this help to improve well-being and, whilst we can measure productivity, how do we actually measure emotions such as happiness and the direct effect this has on outputs? And the big question is: What cost does this add to a project? According to Cundall it has added around 3% to the project value which equates to just £200 per head.
There are elements of WELL that will need to be addressed if it is to become mainstream in the UK, in much the same way that BREEAM has. For example, in the UK and many other European countries, certain standards are higher than those within WELL. A comparative base line will need to be created so we are not rewarding for going backwards. Also the business case will be different. In the US there is no NHS, instead private healthcare is provided by employers. As such there is a clear reason for US employers to adopt WELL to increase productivity and reduce their healthcare costs. We may need to look at incentives for UK employers.
In the case of the success of One Carter Lane, time will tell, but the initial reports do indicate that a working environment that promotes happiness, well-being, positivity and improved productivity has been created. The challenge is how do we adopt wellness in the same way that we have embraced sustainability?
For me, wellbeing is a vital part of every building – whether it is a school, a hospital, an office or a home. Buildings that make us feel comfortable, happy and calm are essential. With so much of our time spent indoors, and with illness costing UK businesses on average £550 per employee per year (a total of about £30bn, according to the Chartered Institute of Professional Development) it’s something that we all need to embrace – after all we build buildings for people.

Sustainability has been at the top of the agenda for many years but I have an ever-increasing feeling that much of the industry is missing the next step. Over recent years we have been placing our emphasis on the environmental and economic parts of sustainability, but we shouldn’t forget the fact that we are creating buildings for people and the well-being of these people should be the priority. So the question is: Are we putting buildings before people? Is it now time to place greater emphasis on people?
When you look at costs in relation to buildings, we freely talk about energy savings but our biggest cost is the people within them and this figure is an astonishing 90% of that overall cost. In addition it has been claimed that we spend over 90% of our time indoors and in an office environment. So why has the focus been put firmly on creating better buildings when, in fact, we should be creating buildings to make the occupants feel better, and in turn, happier and more productive? Imagine what we could achieve if we were able to increase productivity in an office by just 1% simply through creating a better working environment? Well, I have a feeling this is all about to change.
A couple of months ago it was alluded to in an article in Building magazine that the WELL Building Standard could soon be aligned with global sustainability standard BREEAM. The WELL Standard, created by US-based consultants Delos, measures human health and wellness using evidence-based medical and scientific research to help inform better design of buildings. To quote Delos founder Paul Scialla and Building magazine: “Delos are in talks with BRE about pairing the WELL Standard with BREEAM.” This could be a major step forward to aligning the performance of buildings with the wellness of its occupants as reinforced by Scialla who stated that he realised 7 years ago there was a “huge gap in regard to not enough understanding of how the built environment really is impacting biological sustainability as opposed to just environmental.”
BREEAM has long been the ‘go to’ standard to help deliver sustainable buildings. Used in more than 70 countries and with 24,000 projects around the world, and more than 2.2 million buildings and communities registered for certification, it is clear to understand the value that the built environment places on BREEAM. Whilst BREEAM does encourage occupier and building owners to continually monitor performance, it doesn’t go as far as looking and measuring occupier behaviours and well-being. Surely this is the next natural step? And, as if on cue, we have WELL.
Whilst the WELL Standard has been in existence for some years now – most actively in the USA – it is relatively new to Europe. However, Studio Ben Allen Architects’ One Carter Lane project has just become the first European project to receive the accreditation. One Carter Lane, the new London headquarters of engineers Cundall, is a 15,400ft² Cat-A office fit-out. The fit-out provides new workspaces for up to 180 employees and attained a BREEAM Excellent rating and SKA Gold certification – in addition to a WELL Gold standard.
The WELL Building Standard defines a set of compliance requirements that cover seven key areas: air, water, nourishment, light, fitness, comfort and mind. It looks at driving change towards more personal criteria such as stating that 30% of staff must have space to eat lunch together; materials such as desks and storage must use natural materials; and that the volatile organic compound (VOC) rating of all materials must be between negligible and zero, thus ensuring that office fixtures, fittings and fabric do not expel harmful chemical or organic emissions.
So how does all this help to improve well-being and, whilst we can measure productivity, how do we actually measure emotions such as happiness and the direct effect this has on outputs? And the big question is: What cost does this add to a project? According to Cundall it has added around 3% to the project value which equates to just £200 per head.
There are elements of WELL that will need to be addressed if it is to become mainstream in the UK, in much the same way that BREEAM has. For example, in the UK and many other European countries, certain standards are higher than those within WELL. A comparative base line will need to be created so we are not rewarding for going backwards. Also the business case will be different. In the US there is no NHS, instead private healthcare is provided by employers. As such there is a clear reason for US employers to adopt WELL to increase productivity and reduce their healthcare costs. We may need to look at incentives for UK employers.
In the case of the success of One Carter Lane, time will tell, but the initial reports do indicate that a working environment that promotes happiness, well-being, positivity and improved productivity has been created. The challenge is how do we adopt wellness in the same way that we have embraced sustainability?
For me, wellbeing is a vital part of every building – whether it is a school, a hospital, an office or a home. Buildings that make us feel comfortable, happy and calm are essential. With so much of our time spent indoors, and with illness costing UK businesses on average £550 per employee per year (a total of about £30bn, according to the Chartered Institute of Professional Development) it’s something that we all need to embrace – after all we build buildings for people.

Sep 02, 2016 252

Personal Information

First Name
Sophie

Last Name
Slociak

Profession
Media

About

Talk.Build - Is an independent site that talks about construction. Talk.Build is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk